Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds value beyond them: a 16000-character limit on text and a disclosure of the return shape (thread_id, status, next_action, poll_after_seconds, next_step) plus the polling handoff to get_request_status. It doesn't note auth requirements or idempotency nuance, but the added operational detail is meaningful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose, then the per-call constraint, then the return contract. Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with no filler. Slightly dense in the final return-value clause but well organized overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a write tool with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, the one-intent rule, the size limit, and the polling next step. The only gap is the semantics of workflow_profile, which nothing documents.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does. It clarifies the `text` constraint (<16000 chars) but leaves project_id and especially the optional workflow_profile entirely unexplained. The constraint on text is genuinely useful, but half the parameters remain opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource set: 'Ask for a change... a feature, a bug fix, or a new direction.' An agent immediately understands this is the entry point for submitting work. It references get_request_status as the follow-up, but doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like refine_request or answer_request.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a real usage constraint ('Each call carries ONE feature or intent; a multi-feature ask belongs in separate requests'), which helps shape invocation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use against alternatives such as refine_request, so guidance is implied rather than fully specified.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.